Paul Ndung’u, a Kenyan businessman, plans to challenge a London High Court decision and pursue damages following a ruling that found SportPesa Global Holdings Limited unlawfully reduced his ownership stake from 17 percent to less than 1 percent.
On November 18, 2025, Justice Edward Johnson issued a decision in a case that revealed what he characterized as systematic dishonesty, fraudulent conduct, and false testimony by the gambling firm’s Bulgarian executives and their business partners.
During the three-week hearing at England and Wales’ Business and Property Courts, evidence showed that Ndung’u—who held leadership positions at SportPesa Global Holdings Limited until early January 2021—never received notification documents for a share offering until after the deadline for participation had expired.
The judge determined the company violated provisions of the UK Companies Act 2006 concerning existing shareholders’ priority rights, which safeguard investors from unjust ownership dilution. A second violation was acknowledged by the company during the trial.
While recognizing these substantial corporate law violations, Justice Johnson rejected Ndung’u’s claim, reasoning that he lacked sufficient funds (£170,000) to purchase the offered shares.
This conclusion conflicted with financial records demonstrating Ndung’u had access to over £896,000 across various accounts and credit facilities, including substantial overdraft arrangements and significant balances in both personal and business accounts.
Ndung’u’s legal representative, Dr Ekuru Aukot, indicated the decision contains internal inconsistencies that will anchor the appeal. The court has given Ndung’u until late January 2026 to file appeal documents.
The proceedings also uncovered that SportPesa Global Holdings Limited failed to meet UK financial reporting standards by not producing audited consolidated financial statements, despite not qualifying for small company exemptions due to its size and workforce.
Although Ndung’u had arranged for KPMG to conduct audits, the Bulgarian executives did not proceed with the audit process, offering various explanations. Justice Johnson noted the absence of documentation supporting their claims and found the directors provided false testimony.
The trial examined allegations that the ownership dilution resulted from coordinated actions among the Bulgarian executives and other parties. Evidence suggested notification letters were deliberately misdirected.
The UK proceedings followed related litigation in Kenya, where an appellate court reversed its earlier decision after discovering document forgery. The Kenyan courts subsequently issued public warnings about criminal document manipulation.
Throughout the London trial, the defendants acknowledged numerous regulatory violations while claiming these were unintentional errors.
Justice Johnson observed that cases involving intentional shareholder dilution through violation of priority rights have no prior examples in UK jurisprudence. He described the case as involving complex circumstances and serious misconduct.
Dr Aukot suggested the case’s complexity and revelations of various improprieties may serve as educational material for legal institutions regarding challenges ordinary investors face against well-resourced opponents.
The forthcoming appeal will address what Ndung’u’s team views as a fundamental inconsistency: finding significant corporate law breaches while dismissing the claim based on a financial capability assessment that appears to contradict documented evidence of substantial available resources.
KenyanHour 